svn commit: r196746 - in stable/8/sys: . amd64/include/xen cddl/contrib/opensolaris contrib/dev/acpica contrib/pf dev/usb dev/usb/input dev/xen/xenpci

[Simon L. Nielsen]

On 2009.09.02 08:14:06 -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> Remko Lodder wrote:
> > On Wed, September 2, 2009 4:12 am, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> >> Author: alfred
> >> Date: Wed Sep  2 02:12:07 2009
> >> New Revision: 196746
> >> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/196746
> >>
> >> Log:
> >>   MFC: r196489,196498
> >>   Critical USB bugfixes for 8.0
> >>
> > 
> > Dear Alfred (and hps!),
> > 
> > It would be awesome to see something more about this in the commit log. I
> > needed to look up the specific revisions to see what changed. I always
> > learned from Warner and people, that including the original commit
> > message(s) saves a lot of time and makes it clear about what is being
> > merged.
> 
> ... and I was taught that including the complete commit message is a
> waste of space since it already exists in HEAD, and therefore to
> summarize the changes briefly rather than reporting them verbatim. A
> philosophy with which I agree. :)  There were only 2 changes merged,
> going back and looking at the logs for them could not have been that
> much of a burden.

FWIW, I like when there is a text describing the change for an MFC,
because:

- I don't have to go looking up more info when reading commit mails.
- I don't have to go looking up more info when history X years later
  (this could of couse be dealt with in viewsvn if we wanted to).
- If one accidently refer to the wrong revision number it is possible
  track down which change was MFC'ed by looking at the text.

Also I don't see what space is being wasted...

I agree at times it might make sense to summarize in case it's a long
commit msg, but frankly I'm lazy and most of the time I just copy /
paste the commit msg since it's simpler.

Just my 0.01 DKK.

-- 
Simon L. Nielsen